| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Skip collecting decoded changes of already-aborted transactions |
| Date: | 2025-01-16 00:43:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PumfXqbwZuLaX_JK28KnVM_twGQEnMJp-Sa=Cdn0QJe6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 5:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > It seems we agreed on RBTXN_IS_PREPARED and rbtxn_is_prepared().
> > Adding 'IS' seems to clarify the transaction having this flag *is* a
> > prepared transaction. Both other two constants RBTXN_SENT_PREAPRE and
> > RBTXN_SKIPPED_PREPARE seem not bad to me.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I find that the proposed
> > names don't increase the consistency much. Thoughts?
> >
>
> I also think so.
>
My thoughts are that any consistency improvement is a step in the
right direction so even "don't increase the consistency much" is still
better than nothing.
But if I am outvoted that's OK. It is not a big deal.
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-01-16 00:51:39 | Re: Having problems generating a code coverage report |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-01-16 00:42:49 | Re: Infinite loop in XLogPageRead() on standby |